|
Greg Utas wrote: These are the same idiots who ran up tons of debt to buy back their own shares during a market bubble, which did wonders for their executives' stock options and bonuses. Most of these sphincters deserve to be sacked,
exactly
And if we start... could we add some lawyers, bankers and many politicians, please?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Bankers, especially central bankers, are even worse. Lawyers don't have much to do with this. Sacking is too good for politicians.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Sacking is too good for politicians.
So is hanging! 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Sacking is too good for politicians.
Most definitely. I rate "politician" career-wise as a rung or so above "meth-dealer."
When people ask why I'm (post)-anarchist I just gesture expansively and say "consider the alternative"
Democratic centralized government is a nice trick, wherein we actually *elect* a small cabal of narcissists to do things *to* us at least as often as *for* us. Good long con, anyway.
Of course, a lot of people consider me crazy for my political views, but I don't mind. I'm not trying to change the world anyway, just navigate it.
Was this too political for the lounge? I feel like we're already dipping our toes into the political.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. I'd rate meth dealers above politicians. 
|
|
|
|
|
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever a US politician grant a billion dollars to a "worthy" purpose, such as keeping an airline alive, that amounts to three dollars per US citizen. Whenever a politician grants a trillion dollars to keep the economy running, that amounts to three thousand dollars per citizen. That includes newborn babies and retired grandmas. Whenever you hear "a trillion dollars worth of support", if you have four kids that is eighteen thousand dollars for your little family.
It must be paid by the tax payers; there is noone else to pay it. You and your family must pay back those eighteen thousand dollars. Maybe some of it is, in the first stage, paid by business life, through the taxes they pay. Where do they get their money? From their customers, the man in the street. If their taxes rise by a total of half a trillion, their income must raise by half a trillion. Their only way to do that is to raise their prices. So maybe your six-person household pays "only" nine thousand dollars in direct tax rise, but another nine thousand dollars in raised product prices. That is per trillion that is granted to keep business up.
I think that lots of people think of these trillions are money that they (or business) receive as a gift, without being worried about who gives this gift. They do not view the granting of a trillion as taking away three thousand dollar per person in the household from the economy of that household. But that is what it really is. Of course, some of it might manifest in other ways, e.g. schools having less funds to employ teachers or to buy new textbooks. Maybe they have to cancel the planned class trip. Maybe the village marching band loose their funding so they can't employ a conductor, and must close down. So you may see it not as money taken away, but as services and public offerings taken away. Nevertheless, you experience a loss. The total comes out as three thousand dollars per citizen, per trillion granted to "the economy".
A lot of people will agree, "It is a good idea to spend a trillion dollars to keep economy going". Far fewer will agree "Our six person family think it is a good idea to take eighteen thousand dollars from your household budget to keep economy going" - even though these are in fact saying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
You're looking at not only what is readily seen, but also what is unseen, which is the foundation of all clear economic analysis.
Unfortunately, very few people do this. Politicians say "we're going to create jobs", hoping that no one thinks of the jobs that would have been created naturally, instead of in favored sectors, if taxpayers could have spent their money as they saw fit.
Or "we need to stimulate the economy", dragging consumption forward instead of saving (which translates into investing) for a rainy day, while simultaneously fooling businesses into thinking that actual demand exists when it is only transient and artificial.
There are countless other examples, but suffice it to say that most economic analysis, often from so-called professionals, is either superficial or outright lying to justify immoral practices.
|
|
|
|
|
Amarnath S wrote: This is concerning:
"We should get used to news of this kind," said Associate Professor Volodymyr Bilotkach, a lecturer in air transport management at the Singapore Institute of Technology. "We'll see more airlines go under."
go under ?
- under water ?
- under ground ??
- under pants 
pestilence [ pes-tl-uh ns ] noun
1. a deadly or virulent epidemic disease. especially bubonic plague.
2. something that is considered harmful, destructive, or evil.
Synonyms: pest, plague, CCP
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that going under means going out of business.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well it is an Australian airline, couldn't "Going under" be a marketing slogan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just your countrymen. It's humans in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 27-Apr-20 9:14am.
|
|
|
|
|
This is trolling is its most egregious form! 
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
What is Trolling?
I am not familiar with the Term.
Is it Bad or Good?
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
Trolling means breaking the rules of the site.
I've a good mind to report your post as abusive. I still reserve the right to.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I do not think I broke the rules of the Site.
Speaking the Truth should never be breaking the rules anywhere. That is called Freedom of Expression.
That Right is enshrined in your constitution.
If that breaks the rules, the rules are wrong.
Bram van Kampen
|
|
|
|
|
For your information, the American right of Free Speech means that the gov't can stop you or punish you for your speech.
It does not apply to private companies.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
And by the way, if you don't agree with the rules here, there are thousands of other sites that would welcome your venom.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you drunk?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Only 61 million people voted for the clown, not the entire country.
|
|
|
|
|
But for this coronavirus misadventure, I feel Trump is the right person in the right position. His decisions so far have the intention to Make America Great again.
Again, he is democratically elected, and did not come by a coup or rebellion.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
